Bug#253211: Fix and some thoughts [Was: Bug#253211: Problems with the screen display in second stage]
reassign 253211 base-config
retitle 253211 No line box drawing characters in 2.4 installs for Latin languages
thanks
Quoting Recai Oktas (roktas@omu.edu.tr):
> (1) For all languages, use the proper fonts with the box drawing chars
> in everywhere (both in termwrap and console-tools/config), providing
> that the selected font can properly display national chars. For
> example, we couldn't use lat0-sun16 for Turkish, since some Turkish
> spesific glyphes simply would not exist.
>
> (2) For the debconf newt, treat this "dialog boxes without frames"
> appearance as a feature, and use the iso* fonts in everywhere. This
> somewhat ensures a common appearance for all languages and do not have
> any national screen problem.
>
> (3) As I prefer for Turkish, use Terminus font (ter-*) for all iso
> languages. From the description of 'console-terminus' package:
>
> The following charsets are supported: western
> European Latin, central European Latin, Turkish Latin, Romanian
> Latin, Slavic Cyrillic and Asian Cyrillic (Bashkyr, Kazakh,
> Mongolian and others).
The (2) solution is certainly not possible for me. The boxes
appearance is part of the general d-i consistency. Moreover, joeyh
perfectly resume the concerns for other console applications needing
these border characters
(1) means reverting Kenshi Muto changes to termwrap. These were needed
by different console font handling in 2.6 and 2.4 which lead to broken
dialog boxes in 2.6 installs (boxes bordered with "strange"
characters). This has a drawback-->we need termwrap to behave
differently with 2.4 and 2.6 kernels
(3) is attractive. Have you tried turkish with both 2.4 and 2.6
kernels with tc1? I have tested the terminux fonts as you suggested an
I confirm they look very interesting.
As a conclusion, I currently vote for (3).
We should note this in rc1 errata as it also affects tc1 which has the
new base-config...but I think it's not worth changing it
...and I learned yet another thing in d-i process..:-)
Reply to: